An unfair URCM rejection no 25

[URCM Monitor]

There was an interesting discussion taking place in URCM concerning cycle
helmets.
One of the regulars (Phil W Lee) had made a specific claim in a running thread
on cycle helmets. He claimed that there was evidence that cycle helmets had
actually caused a number of deaths.

Anne Hall thought that she would ask to see this evidence. Of course she was
not allowed to do that - and her post was not allowed as she is on probation.
We certainly would not want anyone being asked to prove such a claim that cycle
helmets are dangerous.


> On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:20:48 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >And there are real risks to wearing a helmet - Swedish road safety
> >experts have stated that while they've never been able to prove that a
> >cycle helmet has ever saved a single life, it is an uncomfortable and
> >sad truth that they not only can, but have, proved that a number of
> >deaths have been caused by them.
>
>
> Do you have a link for the reports of them causing deaths please - it sounds
> interesting.

[Nick]

To save people the trouble of looking it up there have been a handful of
cases of children strangling themselves on helmet straps stuck in
climbing frames (across the world in last 20 years). i.e. not
significantly frequent when considering helmet efficacy or non-efficacy.

The problem in URCM is not just that Annie's post was rejected but that
no other poster points our the ludicrous nature of such an argument.

This type of argument can of course be directly adapted to measles
vaccines. They have never been able to prove that a specific vaccinated
person has been saved but can attribute specific individual deaths due
to adverse reactions to vaccination.

The measles example also gives us a timely reminder of the problems
caused by people listening to (and repeating) unscientific hysteria.

URCM is like a cult where extreme viewpoints are reinforced by peer
feedback to the point where they become the norm.

If you think URCM is representative of normal cyclists go out on the
street and look at how many voluntarily choose to wear helmets. Cyclists
who believe in helmets so strongly that they are prepared to put up with
the discomfort, cost and inconveinience. Why are the views of these
helmeted cyclists not reflected in URCM?

[John Benn]

"Nick" <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:51654201$0$24700$c3e8da3$6539...@news.astraweb.com...

The "members" of URCM are most definitely NOT representative of most
cyclists thank goodness! Most of them dismiss the clear benefits of cycle
helmets and high-visibility clothing outright. In fact they cannot even
bring themselves to mention the word helmet, preferring to call them foam or
magic hats. Pathetic the lot of 'em.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-04-10 10:42:06 +0000, Nick said:

>
> If you think URCM is representative of normal cyclists go out on the
> street and look at how many voluntarily choose to wear helmets.
> Cyclists who believe in helmets so strongly that they are prepared to
> put up with the discomfort, cost and inconveinience. Why are the views
> of these helmeted cyclists not reflected in URCM?

To be pedantic, a lot of posters in urcm have said they wear helmets.
What is lacking is any widespread proselytising by them demanding
others do so. For that matter, I don't remenmber many comments from
the anti-helmet brigade saying that others shouldn't wear helmets.
I don't disagree about the current rejection, just pointing out that
there is no general antipathy to others using helmets in urcm.


--

Percy Picacity

[Nick]

On 10/04/2013 11:50, Percy Picacity wrote:
> On 2013-04-10 10:42:06 +0000, Nick said:
>
>>
>> If you think URCM is representative of normal cyclists go out on the
>> street and look at how many voluntarily choose to wear helmets.
>> Cyclists who believe in helmets so strongly that they are prepared to
>> put up with the discomfort, cost and inconveinience. Why are the views
>> of these helmeted cyclists not reflected in URCM?
>
> To be pedantic,

Pedantic is fine ;o)

> a lot of posters in urcm have said they wear helmets.
> What is lacking is any widespread proselytising by them demanding others
> do so. For that matter, I don't remenmber many comments from the
> anti-helmet brigade saying that others shouldn't wear helmets.
> I don't disagree about the current rejection, just pointing out that
> there is no general antipathy to others using helmets in urcm.
>

The point is not that posters do or do not wear helmets but that they
do not make posts actively contrary to the prevailing group anti-helmet
sentiment. Reasonably pointing out an anti-helmet argument is flawed is
not proselytising by any stretch of the imagination but any persistence
in such actions is enough to earn the contempt of members of the
moderation team.

So the driver inhibiting pro-helmet posters is a reasonable presumption
that they will be shunned for expressing their beliefs. It is a bit like
homosexuals being tolerated in the church congregation as long as they
don't make a fuss about it.

[Percy Picacity]

Ok, I agree the moderators should not be rejecting reasonable posts
because of their view on helmets. I'm just pointing out that telling
others that they should or should not wear helmets probably isn't a
very interesting topic to most cyclists, apart from a small band of
people who think the Truth should be told about helmets, even if it is
boring. The fact that one side of the argument has control of the
moderation is of course wrong, but it is still an wildly uninteresting
topic for most people to hear rehearsed on a group about cycling. And
it is quite untrue to say that people are thing censored for saying
they wear a helmet, it's the arguments about efficacy that create the
dissension.


--

Percy Picacity

[Ian Jackson]

In article <d779m8h07j3u7e60t...@4ax.com>,
URCM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Anne Hall

ITYM "Judith". HTH.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Judith]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:50:57 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

>I don't disagree about the current rejection, just pointing out that
>there is no general antipathy to others using helmets in urcm.

When you say that you don't disagree about the rejection - what makes you think
that it was valid - and why are people not allowed to make such sensible
requests to back up outlandish claims like the one which Lee was making.

[Judith]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:53:59 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

Lee made a claim that there was proof that a number of
deaths have been caused by cycle helmets in Sweden.

It is very reasonable to ask him to back up that claim - it should not be
dependent on the moderator's (or the other group member's) views of the
efficacy of helmets.

If someone had tried to say that there was much evidence from Sweden that cycle
helmets saved lives, then they would *not* be allowed to say that in URCM.

URCM is not fit for purpose.

[Judith]

On 10 Apr 2013 12:57:16 +0100 (BST), ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian

Jackson) wrote:

>In article <d779m8h07j3u7e60t...@4ax.com>,
>URCM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Anne Hall
>
>ITYM "Judith". HTH.

If that was the case - why was the post not rejected as being from a banned
poster?

Perhaps because you have no proof?

[Tim Jackson]

On 10 Apr 2013 12:57:16 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

>
> In article <d779m8h07j3u7e60t...@4ax.com>,
> URCM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Anne Hall
>
> ITYM "Judith". HTH.

Thus proving what I said in Message-ID:
<MPG.2bbac50de...@text.usenet.plus.net>

"Effectiveness in excluding Judith is exactly how they measure success."


But what was Anne/Judith actually trying to say? She was querying the
evidence for Phil's statement that cycle helmets had caused deaths.

Is that a valid point for discussion? Clearly it is - you've allowed
posts by Molly and Scion which raise it. But then, Molly and Scion have
been posting to the group for a while, so the probation policy
presumably wouldn't apply.

So what if I had raised the same query? I'm not a regular contributor
to the group, though I have made a couple of contributions on a
different issue in the thread concerned.

Would I have been caught by your probation policy had I asked about
Phil's evidence?

If yes, why? It's a legitimate question for me to raise.

If not, why not? I clearly fall into the probation policy in the same
way as "Anne Hall".

Can you therefore not see that the probation policy is open to the
criticism that it is arbitrary and capricous?

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Percy Picacity]

The preceding statements said it should not have been rejected. I
agreed it should not have been rejected. I was just trying to point
out the nature of the suppression of views was not as extreme as the
previous poster implied.

--

Percy Picacity

[John Benn]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:KZf*Nt...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> In article <d779m8h07j3u7e60t...@4ax.com>,
> URCM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Anne Hall
>
> ITYM "Judith". HTH.

Where is your proof?

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:33:26 +0100, John Benn wrote...

In the mod's eyes, that's the beauty of the probation policy. It's
woolly and unclear, so they can they use it to reject posts arbitrarily,
without needing any proof.

They are of course between a rock and a hard place. They really want to
reject posts like this as being from a banned person, but then they get
asked for proof. So instead they invent a policy which is arbitrary and
capricious, and get criticised for that instead.

[Molly Mockford]

At 13:54:32 on Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote in <MPG.2bcf71576...@text.usenet.plus.net>:

>Is that a valid point for discussion? Clearly it is - you've allowed
>posts by Molly and Scion which raise it. But then, Molly and Scion have
>been posting to the group for a while, so the probation policy
>presumably wouldn't apply.

Well, I had made precisely one post before the probationer qualification
came in - and I was therefore quite astounded when my next attempt to
post was met with manual approval. In fact, every post I have made has
been met with manual approval. This is probably because, when I wish to
challenge a point made by another poster, I do so (a) reasonably
courteously and (b) reasonably sensibly.

And I don't reply to posts which are, in my opinion, needlessly
inflammatory and which have failed to understand or address the point at
issue - such as one made at 09 April 2013 11:20:48. However, that
particular post did prompt Simon Mason to post factual information about
deaths directly related to cycle helmets, which made it clear that "the
only unambiguous evidence showing any relationship between fatalities
and cycle helmet use" related to children aged seven and younger, mostly
aged three and under, and none of whom was doing anything remotely
related to cycling. (Strap a helmet on your three-year-old and send him
or her off to climb a tree, and what do you expect other than lingering
death by strangulation?)

But anyway, now we have hard facts about all the deaths caused by cycle
helmets, none of which relate to cycling or even head impact, but all of
which relate to strangulation/asphyxiation while the munchkins were
presumably grossly insufficiently supervised.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <MPG.2bcfa6ea8...@text.usenet.plus.net>,

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>In the mod's eyes, that's the beauty of the probation policy. It's
>woolly and unclear, so they can they use it to reject posts arbitrarily,
>without needing any proof.

The main advantage of the probation policy is that it provides a
better rejection reason. In the unlikely event that at some point
some actual new poster posts a message which looks, smells, quacks and
irritates like Judith and gets their message rejected, they are more
likely to be educated and/or try again. Of course that hasn't ever
happened so far. I notice that even now no-one with any credibility
left to lose is actually saying this isn't Judith, just that we don't
have proof. Well, no, we don't have proof. It's still Judith though.

[kat]

Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 13:54:32 on Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
> wrote in <MPG.2bcf71576...@text.usenet.plus.net>:
>
>> Is that a valid point for discussion? Clearly it is - you've allowed
>> posts by Molly and Scion which raise it. But then, Molly and Scion
>> have been posting to the group for a while, so the probation policy
>> presumably wouldn't apply.
>
> Well, I had made precisely one post before the probationer
> qualification came in - and I was therefore quite astounded when my
> next attempt to post was met with manual approval. In fact, every
> post I have made has been met with manual approval. This is probably
> because, when I wish to challenge a point made by another poster, I
> do so (a) reasonably courteously and (b) reasonably sensibly.
>

And they would find it very hard to think you are Judith. ;-)


--
kat
>^..^<

[Ian Jackson]

In article <czJchzE1...@molly.mockford>,

Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>Well, I had made precisely one post before the probationer qualification
>came in - and I was therefore quite astounded when my next attempt to
>post was met with manual approval. In fact, every post I have made has
>been met with manual approval. This is probably because, when I wish to
>challenge a point made by another poster, I do so (a) reasonably
>courteously and (b) reasonably sensibly.

Your posts have always been fine, indeed. I haven't checked whether
you're on the passlist, but that wouldn't make any difference in this
thread anyway - we always manually moderate helmet threads.

[Molly Mockford]

At 18:22:17 on Wed, 10 Apr 2013, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<asllea...@mid.individual.net>:

Oh tut, kat - they can think as hard as that, I'm sure! In fact, some
of them are probably extremely hard of thinking...

[Molly Mockford]

At 18:11:38 on Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<Yhb*sD...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>In article <MPG.2bcfa6ea8...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
>Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>In the mod's eyes, that's the beauty of the probation policy. It's
>>woolly and unclear, so they can they use it to reject posts arbitrarily,
>>without needing any proof.
>
>The main advantage of the probation policy is that it provides a
>better rejection reason. In the unlikely event that at some point
>some actual new poster posts a message which looks, smells, quacks and
>irritates like Judith and gets their message rejected, they are more
>likely to be educated and/or try again. Of course that hasn't ever
>happened so far. I notice that even now no-one with any credibility
>left to lose is actually saying this isn't Judith, just that we don't
>have proof. Well, no, we don't have proof. It's still Judith though.

What we are actually saying, over and over again - and by "we" I mean
great unnumbered hordes of us who have oodles of credibility - is that
it is madness to try and moderate by banning somebody and then guessing
when you think they have morphed IDs. That is what killfiles are for.
Not moderation policies.

I have no fondness for urcm; I have no fondness for you, Ian, on a
personal level, for reasons which you have probably wiped from your
conscience but which other Committee members - and, for a different
reason, UKVoting members - will recall clearly. However, despite these
dislikes of mine, the posts which I deliberately make to urcm all pass
the PCI test - they are pleasant, civil and of interest to cyclists. If
Judith were to make a series of posts which also pass that test, it
doesn't matter one speck of batshit who she is, or says she is, or
isn't; it's the post that matters, not the poster. You are not
involved in a snooker match.

And that is what loads of people with any credibility have said to you,
over and over and over and over - and will continue to say, because it
is the only thing which will (a) enable urcm to become a thriving,
relaxed, pleasant, interesting, busy newsgroup and (b) enable the
moderators to become relaxed, pleasant people basking in the warmth of
the knowledge that they do their job well and that people with
credibility think they do their job well.

Now I must go and baste the chicken. But do, just for five minutes of
your life, give a bit of thought to perhaps considering doing things
differently?

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:14:08 +0100, Molly Mockford wrote...

> Now I must go and baste the chicken. But do, just for five minutes of
> your life, give a bit of thought to perhaps considering doing things
> differently?

I agree with Molly. Except that I've just finished eating the chicken.
Very tasty.

[Tim Jackson]

On 10 Apr 2013 18:11:38 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

> The main advantage of the probation policy is that it provides a
> better rejection reason.

Better in what way? You are still rejecting it because you believe it's
Judith, but you are not being honest about it.

What is "better", from your point of view but no-one else's, is that you
can reject the message without having any proof. So you don't have to
let through several posts which are probably from Judith but don't cause
any harm, then hold up several more posts for 48 hours while you debate
it.

The reason you are able to do this is because the policy is completely
non-transparent, so you can just do what you like.

> In the unlikely event that at some point
> some actual new poster posts a message which looks, smells, quacks and
> irritates like Judith and gets their message rejected, they are more
> likely to be educated and/or try again.

Please put yourself in the shoes of an actual new poster and re-read
your rejection message. Do you honestly believe that they would be
educated and try again?

And you've made clear that you don't believe that actual new posters are
being rejected anyway. So this is just window dressing to try to
justify something that is manifestly non-transparent and arbitrary.

[kat]

Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:14:08 +0100, Molly Mockford wrote...
>
>> Now I must go and baste the chicken. But do, just for five minutes
>> of your life, give a bit of thought to perhaps considering doing
>> things differently?
>
> I agree with Molly. Except that I've just finished eating the
> chicken. Very tasty.

And I agree with both of you. But I cooked the chicken on Tuesday. And
tomorrow I will make stock with the carcass.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Nick]

On 10/04/2013 18:11, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <MPG.2bcfa6ea8...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>> In the mod's eyes, that's the beauty of the probation policy. It's
>> woolly and unclear, so they can they use it to reject posts arbitrarily,
>> without needing any proof.
>
> The main advantage of the probation policy is that it provides a
> better rejection reason. In the unlikely event that at some point
> some actual new poster posts a message which looks, smells, quacks and
> irritates like Judith and gets their message rejected, they are more
> likely to be educated and/or try again. Of course that hasn't ever
> happened so far. I notice that even now no-one with any credibility
> left to lose is actually saying this isn't Judith, just that we don't
> have proof. Well, no, we don't have proof. It's still Judith though.
>

I wouldn't like to guess how you assess credibility. I myself attribute
more creditability to posters who do not pretend to know things that
they clearly don't.

[Nick]

On 10/04/2013 17:25, Percy Picacity wrote:

> The preceding statements said it should not have been rejected. I agreed
> it should not have been rejected. I was just trying to point out the
> nature of the suppression of views was not as extreme as the previous
> poster implied.

It seems that what I believe I implied in my post and what you believe
you could infer from it are quite different.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-04-10 20:41:14 +0000, Nick said:

"Why are the views of these helmeted cyclists not reflected in URCM?"

I am about to try a cycling helmet, mainly for a desired
risk-compensation effect on my downhill speed (currently <5mph). I
don't doubt that my views will be acceptable in urcm. It just so
happens that I have a limited knowledge of the global evidence of
benefit of helmets, and even less interest.

I am to be a helmeted cyclist and I have no doubt my views are
reflected in urcm. So I do not agree with the premise of your
question. And I guess I might be more representative of the views of
helmeted cyclists in general than the many manifestations of Judith.
BICBW

--

Percy Picacity

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-04-10, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <MPG.2bcfa6ea8...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>In the mod's eyes, that's the beauty of the probation policy. It's
>>woolly and unclear, so they can they use it to reject posts arbitrarily,
>>without needing any proof.
>
> The main advantage of the probation policy is that it provides a
> better rejection reason. In the unlikely event that at some point
> some actual new poster posts a message which looks, smells, quacks and
> irritates like Judith and gets their message rejected, they are more
> likely to be educated and/or try again.

Or you could just, y'know, not give a toss whether it's Judith or not,
and moderate on content.

[The Todal]

It rather looks as if the overriding objective of the URCM moderation
team is to win a war against Judith. All other priorities are secondary.
It is as if they regarded her as a bacterium or virus which, if it
breaches the skin, will infect the body and cause the death of the
patient. Or a scrap metal merchant who, if allowed to cast anchor on the
Falkland Islands, will jeopardise our sovereignty.

They need to stand back and think: how can we make this job simpler and
easier?

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:25:24 +0100, The Todal wrote...

> It rather looks as if the overriding objective of the URCM moderation
> team is to win a war against Judith.

Clearly so.

What makes a good moderator? I think the clue's in the name: you have
to be "moderate".

If there are warring parties, as there obviously are here, the moderator
has to be able to stand between them, viewing all posts objectively,
allowing those which are moderate, but rejecting those which are not.
The moderator needs to have a neutral stance.

This doesn't work when the moderators themselves are one of the warring
parties. It's impossible for anyone in such circumstances to be
objective. It impossible to have a neutral stance when you are on one
side of the war. It's not possible to "moderate".

[steve robinson]

Tim Jackson wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:25:24 +0100, The Todal wrote...
>
> > It rather looks as if the overriding objective of the URCM
> > moderation team is to win a war against Judith.
>
> Clearly so.
>
> What makes a good moderator? I think the clue's in the name: you
> have to be "moderate".
>
> If there are warring parties, as there obviously are here, the
> moderator has to be able to stand between them, viewing all posts
> objectively, allowing those which are moderate, but rejecting those
> which are not. The moderator needs to have a neutral stance.
>
> This doesn't work when the moderators themselves are one of the
> warring parties. It's impossible for anyone in such circumstances to
> be objective. It impossible to have a neutral stance when you are on
> one side of the war. It's not possible to "moderate".

In such a situation the moderator needs to take a back seat allowing
other members to deal with it.

[Nick]

On 10/04/2013 23:05, Percy Picacity wrote:
> On 2013-04-10 20:41:14 +0000, Nick said:
>
>> On 10/04/2013 17:25, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>
>>> The preceding statements said it should not have been rejected. I agreed
>>> it should not have been rejected. I was just trying to point out the
>>> nature of the suppression of views was not as extreme as the previous
>>> poster implied.
>>
>> It seems that what I believe I implied in my post and what you believe
>> you could infer from it are quite different.
>
> "Why are the views of these helmeted cyclists not reflected in URCM?"
>

My intended implication of this comment was:

In the UK a high proportion of cyclists choose to wear helmets. My guess
is that the main reason for a cyclist choosing to wear a helmet is
because they believe it confers a substantial safety benefit on the
wearer. Thus in an unbiased group (representative of uk cyclists) I
would expect a large proportion of helmet efficacy related posts to
reflect the view that helmets confer a significant safety benefit. My
feeling is that in urcm the proportion of posters expressing this
pro-helmet view is dramatically below the level I would expect to see.

i.e. A significant bias exists.

> I am about to try a cycling helmet, mainly for a desired
> risk-compensation effect on my downhill speed (currently <5mph). I
> don't doubt that my views will be acceptable in urcm. It just so
> happens that I have a limited knowledge of the global evidence of
> benefit of helmets, and even less interest.
>

Risk-compensation is an effect championed from within the anti helmet
camp. Its existence is controversial to say the least. It is
unsurprising that promoting risk compensation would be acceptable to
someone with an anti helmet bias.

Regardless, a claim of bias is not a claim of absolute censorship and
the existence of a counter example does not prove bias does not exist.
This should be obvious to anyone with any familiarity of the subtlety of
issues relating to discrimination, bias, racism. It appears that even
the originator(s) of the "Judith style" posts understand that censorship
is not total and hence often include a hint of Judith to ensure rejection.

> I am to be a helmeted cyclist and I have no doubt my views are reflected
> in urcm. So I do not agree with the premise of your question. And I
> guess I might be more representative of the views of helmeted cyclists
> in general than the many manifestations of Judith. BICBW
>

Actually I think Judith who appears to promote the "helmets confer a
safety benefit" view is more representative of helmeted cyclists than
your strange risk compensation reason.

I'm surprised to have had to spell out my meaning at such length, I
thought what was implied was relatively clear.

*Judith please correct me if I have misrepresented your position.

[tom]

On 10 Apr, 11:50, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> On 2013-04-10 10:42:06 +0000, Nick said:
>
>
>
> > If you think URCM is representative of normal cyclists go out on the
> > street and look at how many voluntarily choose to wear helmets.
> > Cyclists who believe in helmets so strongly that they are prepared to

> > put up with the discomfort, cost and inconveinience. Why are the views

> > of these helmeted cyclists not reflected in URCM?
>

> To be pedantic, a lot of posters in urcm have said they wear helmets.

> What is lacking is any widespread proselytising by them demanding
> others do so.  For that matter, I don't remenmber many comments from
> the anti-helmet brigade saying that others shouldn't wear helmets.

> I don't disagree about the current rejection, just pointing out that
> there is no general antipathy to others using helmets in urcm.

I disagree with you.

Moderators of urcm and those on the passlist have often indicated a
belief that anyone wearing a helmet is advocating compulsory helmet
use. Their argument is that if cycle helmet use becomes widespread
then the pro helmet lobby will be able to convince legislators that
helmet use should become mandatory.

I am not sure that I wholly disagree with them. If helmet use reaches
80 - 90% there is a very good chance that a law will be passed to make
helmet use mandatory.

However, I do not feel that challenging their viewpoints is a
sufficient reason for blocking posts supporting helmet use.

[tom]

On 10 Apr, 18:34, ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> In article <czJchzE1rZZRF...@molly.mockford>,

> Molly Mockford  <usenets...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >Well, I had made precisely one post before the probationer qualification
> >came in - and I was therefore quite astounded when my next attempt to
> >post was met with manual approval.  In fact, every post I have made has
> >been met with manual approval.  This is probably because, when I wish to
> >challenge a point made by another poster, I do so (a) reasonably
> >courteously and (b) reasonably sensibly.
>
> Your posts have always been fine, indeed.  I haven't checked whether
> you're on the passlist, but that wouldn't make any difference in this
> thread anyway - we always manually moderate helmet threads.

Any chance that you could publish your full passlist/blocklist manual-
moderation/auto-moderation policy?

It would be extremely helpful if you could, because at the moment I'm
hopelessly confused by what the policy might be.

[Judith]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:55:34 +0100, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>*Judith please correct me if I have misrepresented your position.

Not at all - you are spot on.

[Judith]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 03:57:55 -0700 (PDT), tom <t...@britsc.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Moderators of urcm and those on the passlist have often indicated a
>belief that anyone wearing a helmet is advocating compulsory helmet
>use. Their argument is that if cycle helmet use becomes widespread
>then the pro helmet lobby will be able to convince legislators that
>helmet use should become mandatory.

You are quite correct - and what you say explains why very often in a cycling
thread - when all else fails the anti-helmet brigade introduce compulsion when
no-one has every mentioned it. (It happened so often I had a sig for it).

I have been told many times that I am in favour of compulsion. I have asked
many times for such a claim by me to be produced. No-one has ever produced
such a post.

--

When the going gets tough in a discussion of helmets - throw in the red-herring of compulsion to
wear them - even if no-one has mentioned it.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <MPG.2bcfcd18d...@text.usenet.plus.net>

You aren't a new poster so stop fucking up the moderation group.

This isn't your complaint so leave it alone.

[kat]

Why has it not happened already? There must be that proportion of helmet
wearers around where I live!


--
kat
>^..^<

[Judith]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:45:26 +0100, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Why has it not happened already? There must be that proportion of helmet
>wearers around where I live!

No,no, no kat - enough of your stirring.

We are told time and time again that there are only a small percentage of
cyclists wear helmets.

Why don't you ask in URCM - don't forget to express your opinion that where you
live the majority of people on cycles wear them :-)

In fact, I bet you that .............

[Judith]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:33:27 +0200 (CEST), "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
<mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:

<snip>

>You aren't a new poster so stop fucking up the moderation group.
>
>This isn't your complaint so leave it alone.

Many thanks for your contribution Wm.

[The Todal]

As Pastor Niemoeller said

They came for the new posters. And I didn't speak out, because I wasn't
a new poster...

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:45:26 +0100, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You are either living in a very different part of Britain to most of us,
or you are only seeing a subset of the cyclists.

80-90% is wildly above the figures found by observational studies
undertaken by TRL.


--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Tim Jackson" <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.2bd096789...@text.usenet.plus.net...

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:25:24 +0100, The Todal wrote...
>
>> It rather looks as if the overriding objective of the URCM moderation
>> team is to win a war against Judith.
>
> Clearly so.
>
> What makes a good moderator? I think the clue's in the name: you have
> to be "moderate".

I half agree, I think you have to "moderate" everyone else, according to the
agreed criteria. It doesn't work in this situation because the "moderation"
is based upon who the poster is, and what side of a particular argument
they're on. The "criteria" is adjusted accordingly.

I see many posts by cyclists in that group that would clearly be
"inflammatory" to motorists, but because motorists aren't allowed to respond
the post is allowed. It's not whether the post content is "inflammatory" or
not that defines its legitimacy; it's whether or not that post would start
or prolong an argument. And it can't possibly cause or sustain an argument
if you make sure that the only posts and posters you allow through, are
those that agree with it. So anti-driver or anti-helmet posts from cyclists
can't ever be "inflammatory" as long as everyone with a contrary opinion or
fact, aren't allowed to respond.

[tom]

On 11 Apr, 13:45, "kat" <littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I am not sure that I wholly disagree with them. If helmet use reaches
> > 80 - 90% there is a very good chance that a law will be passed to make
> > helmet use mandatory.
>
> Why has it not happened already?  There must be that proportion of helmet
> wearers around where I live!

=====Quote=====
The logic is inescapable - try riding a bike through the busy streets
of London, and it would seem almost perverse not to wear a helmet. 40%
of cyclists do.

London has the highest helmet wearing rate in Britain.
=====/Quote=====
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/860259.stm

[Judith]

I wasn't aware of any up to date stats: do you have a link to them please.

[Nick]

On 11/04/2013 18:59, Judith wrote:

> I wasn't aware of any up to date stats: do you have a link to them please.
>

Not right up to date but I found this:

http://tinyurl.com/c8lpds4

long link

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/PPR420.pdf


Summary of helmet wearing rates: Overall 34.3%. In London 69.5%.

"Rates are significantly higher at peak times". So the London commuter
helmet wearing rate might be approaching the 80-90% Kat mentioned.

An interesting test of potential bias in URCM (for anyone with time on
their hands) would be to quantify the proportion of posts broadly pro
helmet vs. those anti helmet.

As stated it is my feeling that pro helmet posts are very rare.

[kat]

I see the cyclists on the roads around me. Locally we have a lot of cycle
lanes, some on the roads, some on the paths, there are a fair number of
cyclists on those roads.

Over the last few years, since it seems to be so important that we had to
have a new newsgroup to prevent certain facets of discussion about the darn
things they have had this horrible tendency to be vividly noticeable. Even
the pavement cyclists wear them. On those occasions that I am out and about
and see those people who seem to enjoy cycling along roads with their heads
down, ignoring the view, they also wear them. It has reached the point
where I am more startled when I see a cyclist not wearing a helmet. The
last one I really recall also jumped a red light at a 3 way junction.



--
kat
>^..^<

[kat]

But who would take the bet? :-)

Anyway, I have already been told I must be wrong or not seeing the real
cyclists. I don't think I need to go to urcm to be told it again.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Judith]

Cycle helmet wearing in London was 70% five years ago according to TRL so I see
no reason at all why it should not be 80%-90% in some areas.

[Judith]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:44:28 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

<snip>

>80-90% is wildly above the figures found by observational studies
>undertaken by TRL.

Other people have found minimum figures of 70% for London - and yet you claim
that kat's observed rate of 80-90% is "wildly out".

I wonder - are you an URCM moderator because this bias comes naturally to you -
or have you developed this bias by being an URCM moderator?

[tom]

Certainly helmet use in Central and Inner London seems to be
considerably higher than outer London. But even in Central London I
think that I have only ever once seen a helmeted cyclist on a Boris
Bike.

But those commuters along the Lower Road all seem to be helmeted, and
I often feel in an alien world if I join them at 8am or 5pm.

[Nick]

On 11/04/2013 21:46, tom wrote:

> But those commuters along the Lower Road all seem to be helmeted, and
> I often feel in an alien world if I join them at 8am or 5pm.
>

Lower Road can be a dangerous place for cyclists. Nearly 30 years on I
can still feel lump in the bone of my arm where it broke after coming
between the bridge of my nose and a van. Mind you as they say I suspect
I would dead if it hadn't been there.

[Andy Leighton]

There are all sorts of factors involved - such as time of day and
location and type of road. Where I am I would probably guesstimate
around 25-28%. In Cambridge I would guess at lower. But the only way
for either of us (and more importantly MPs) to know for sure is for
there to be proper observational studies.

[Molly Mockford]

At 21:09:55 on Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
<51671899$0$1846$c3e8da3$c00c...@news.astraweb.com>:

>An interesting test of potential bias in URCM (for anyone with time on
>their hands) would be to quantify the proportion of posts broadly pro
>helmet vs. those anti helmet.
>
>As stated it is my feeling that pro helmet posts are very rare.

What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use. They do
not consider that there are many possible head injuries, ranging from
the totally-squashed-bug to the "ouch, buggrit". I venture to suppose
that people who wear helmets do so with a view to minimising the "ouch,
buggrit" episodes, which urcm posters by and large disregard.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

[tom]

On 11 Apr, 23:59, Molly Mockford <nospamnob...@mollymockford.me.uk>
wrote:

> What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
> posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
> head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use.  They do
> not consider that there are many possible head injuries, ranging from
> the totally-squashed-bug to the "ouch, buggrit".  I venture to suppose
> that people who wear helmets do so with a view to minimising the "ouch,
> buggrit" episodes, which urcm posters by and large disregard.

And there you are wrong.

Those opposed to cycle helmets will say that "ouch buggrit" is good.
Their logic is that without a few "ouch buggrits" new cyclists won't
learn to be safe cyclists, therefore being helmetless is good and
wearing helmets is bad. QED.

[kat]

Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:10:33 +0100, kat <little...@hotmail.com>

>> I see the cyclists on the roads around me. Locally we have a lot of
>> cycle lanes, some on the roads, some on the paths, there are a fair
>> number of cyclists on those roads.
>
> There are all sorts of factors involved - such as time of day and
> location and type of road. Where I am I would probably guesstimate
> around 25-28%. In Cambridge I would guess at lower. But the only way
> for either of us (and more importantly MPs) to know for sure is for
> there to be proper observational studies.

I have no particular routine, I am not a commuter, so my observations are
all over the place.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Scion]

kat put finger to keyboard:

<snip>

> On those occasions
> that I am out and about and see those people who seem to enjoy cycling
> along roads with their heads down, ignoring the view, they also wear
> them.

Like this chap?
http://cheezburger.com/7303205632

(SFW)

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:59:24 +0100, Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> At 21:09:55 on Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
><51671899$0$1846$c3e8da3$c00c...@news.astraweb.com>:
>
>>An interesting test of potential bias in URCM (for anyone with time on
>>their hands) would be to quantify the proportion of posts broadly pro
>>helmet vs. those anti helmet.
>>
>>As stated it is my feeling that pro helmet posts are very rare.
>
> What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
> posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
> head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use. They do
> not consider that there are many possible head injuries, ranging from
> the totally-squashed-bug to the "ouch, buggrit".

I think you will find that most people know that the "ough buggrit"
case is where helmets ARE useful. Some have explicitly said so in the
group. It is the pro-helmet people who are constantly selling them as a
near-panacea for KSI head-injury accidents, and it is that which is
being responded to.

[kat]

LOL, I haven't seen any do that!


--
kat
>^..^<

[Judith]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:39:40 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

<snip>

> But the only way
>for either of us (and more importantly MPs) to know for sure is for
>there to be proper observational studies.

Says the person who said : "80-90% is wildly above the figures found by

observational studies undertaken by TRL."

but who has yet to provide the link to the studies already taken.

Perhaps he was thinking of the one which showed busy areas of London with 70%
helmet wearing.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:asnpje...@mid.individual.net...

> Why has it not happened already? There must be that proportion of helmet
> wearers around where I live!
>

In as much as you can pigeon hole cyclists based on a quick glance, I'd say
the vast majority of leisure cyclists I see (outside commuting hours, in
proper cycling clothing, usually in groups) will wear helmets - probably
90%.

For those that look like they are commuting (at the normal time of the day,
often in work wear) I'd say it's more like 50%.

When you look at children then the vast majority of primary school age have
helmets and amongst teenagers most don't (but given that lots think that
brakes are unnecessary I'm not surprised)

--
Alex

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkmfes0...@azaal.plus.com...

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:59:24 +0100, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>> At 21:09:55 on Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>><51671899$0$1846$c3e8da3$c00c...@news.astraweb.com>:
>>
>>>An interesting test of potential bias in URCM (for anyone with time on
>>>their hands) would be to quantify the proportion of posts broadly pro
>>>helmet vs. those anti helmet.
>>>
>>>As stated it is my feeling that pro helmet posts are very rare.
>>
>> What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
>> posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
>> head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use. They do
>> not consider that there are many possible head injuries, ranging from
>> the totally-squashed-bug to the "ouch, buggrit".
>
> I think you will find that most people know that the "ough buggrit"
> case is where helmets ARE useful. Some have explicitly said so in the
> group. It is the pro-helmet people who are constantly selling them as a
> near-panacea for KSI head-injury accidents, and it is that which is
> being responded to.
>

I don't believe many (any?) posters make that claim.
They *do* suggest that in the event of a substantial impact to the head, a
helmet is likely to make things better than worse.


--
Alex

[The Todal]

I recall that quite a few months ago I made the presumptous suggestion
in this forum that cycling was a dangerous activity and that cyclists
could be at risk of injury or death on the road. Immediately there were
replies from URCM moderators and other pro-cycling enthusiasts, sternly
rebuking me and asserting that cycling is both healthy and safe for
everyone. And on that basis, helmets are plainly a foolish fad.

So I suppose any reports of cyclists getting killed by lorries
(especially cyclists who were riding in accordance with the rules of the
road) really ought not to be publicised as it might affect morale.
Better, perhaps, to put out the message that those cyclists who are
killed or injured could have avoided their fate by taking more care.

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:15:39 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>They *do* suggest that in the event of a substantial impact to the head, a
>helmet is likely to make things better than worse.

Indeed: if you ask the regulars (including all moderators) the simple question,
"on average, in the event of a cycle accident and a substantial impact to the
head, is a helmet likely to make things better or worse." - they will actually
refuse to answer the question.

[Percy Picacity]

Safety is relative. The question is whether cycling is significantly
more dangerous than not cycling. I don't have (or presume) the answer,
but an anecdote about one death, or even several, has little bearing on
the answer. People are dying all the time of this and that.

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

Possibly because apart from 'common sense', which gave us leeches and
blood-letting and religion, no-one really knows the answer. There are
no case-control studies big enough to begin to allow for confounding
factors, for instance.


--

Percy Picacity

[Tony]

The moderation policy should just state, "The hemlet use debate has been
done to death, feel free to discuss it in other appropriate locations,
but any post to uk.rec.cycling.moderated which presents any opinion on
the use of cycling helmets will be rejected."

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[The Todal]

That question (whether cycling is significantly more dangerous than not
cycling) is by no means the only question.

Other questions are: how much training/instruction ought a cyclist to
obtain before going out on the road, what can he do to improve his
chances of avoiding injury (including being aware of various scenarios
where he is at risk of serious injury due to the carelessness of
others), what can he do to reduce any injuries he may sustain, what can
be done to improve the behaviour of other road users.

I think it would be thoroughly irresponsible to beckon lots of
inexperienced new cyclists onto the road with the message that it's
perfectly safe and that the more of them there are, the better.

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:31:57 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

<snip>

>I think it would be thoroughly irresponsible to beckon lots of
>inexperienced new cyclists onto the road with the message that it's
>perfectly safe and that the more of them there are, the better.

You obviously have some very sensible views on this Todal: might I suggest that
you potter off to URCM and engage in meaningful discussion.
Newcomers are most welcome. (I have been told)

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:12:29 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

>> Indeed: if you ask the regulars (including all moderators) the simple question,
>> "on average, in the event of a cycle accident and a substantial impact to the
>> head, is a helmet likely to make things better or worse." - they will actually
>> refuse to answer the question.
>
>Possibly because apart from 'common sense', which gave us leeches and
>blood-letting and religion, no-one really knows the answer. There are
>no case-control studies big enough to begin to allow for confounding
>factors, for instance.

Many thanks.
Have you no view one way or the other - or were you just proving my point?

[Percy Picacity]

I honestly haven't. Helmets could help a little, or they may cause as
many problems as they solve. I don't know.

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Indeed: if you ask the regulars (including all moderators) the simple question,
>>> "on average, in the event of a cycle accident and a substantial impact to the
>>> head, is a helmet likely to make things better or worse." - they will actually
>>> refuse to answer the question.
>>
>> Possibly because apart from 'common sense', which gave us leeches and
>> blood-letting and religion, no-one really knows the answer. There are
>> no case-control studies big enough to begin to allow for confounding
>> factors, for instance.
>
>The moderation policy should just state, "The hemlet use debate has been
>done to death, feel free to discuss it in other appropriate locations,
>but any post to uk.rec.cycling.moderated which presents any opinion on
>the use of cycling helmets will be rejected."

Which of course is absolute bollocks - why on earth should any subject which is
obviously of interest to cyclists not be allowed?

Are you suggesting that it is OK to form a moderated group based on the
discussion in RFD and a vote and then introduce any arbitrary policy which was
never envisaged at group formation time.

What would you say if ULM moderators decided to introduce a policy that said :
"The Tory Party may not be mentioned in any post" or "there can be no
discussion of police officers breaking the law"

I suppose it depends on what level of "control" one wants - ffs.


(URC added)

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:00:03 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>

wrote:

>On 2013-04-12 11:54:29 +0000, Judith said:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:12:29 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> Indeed: if you ask the regulars (including all moderators) the simple question,
>>>> "on average, in the event of a cycle accident and a substantial impact to the
>>>> head, is a helmet likely to make things better or worse." - they will actually
>>>> refuse to answer the question.
>>>
>>> Possibly because apart from 'common sense', which gave us leeches and
>>> blood-letting and religion, no-one really knows the answer. There are
>>> no case-control studies big enough to begin to allow for confounding
>>> factors, for instance.
>>
>> Many thanks.
>> Have you no view one way or the other - or were you just proving my point?
>
>I honestly haven't. Helmets could help a little, or they may cause as
>many problems as they solve. I don't know.

In which case the fact that you are about to "try" one must be a very silly
thing to do.

Unless of course, on balance you believe that it will do more good than harm
and that is really the reason you are going to "try" one.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
news:6g5c7e....@news.alt.net...

I propose a test, involving hitting people over the head with a sturdy bit
of wood. Some can have a protective device and others can do without..
I wonder how many of the anti-"foam hat" regulars would prefer to be in the
group with helmets?


--
Alex

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:31:57 +0100
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> I think it would be thoroughly irresponsible to beckon lots of
> inexperienced new cyclists onto the road with the message that it's
> perfectly safe and that the more of them there are, the better.
>

Actually a lot of them would be safer, if only they'd get off the
pavement and ride on the road well out from the gutter. But this is
not the place ...

[Tony]

On 2013-04-12, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>> Indeed: if you ask the regulars (including all moderators) the simple question,
>>>> "on average, in the event of a cycle accident and a substantial impact to the
>>>> head, is a helmet likely to make things better or worse." - they will actually
>>>> refuse to answer the question.
>>>
>>> Possibly because apart from 'common sense', which gave us leeches and
>>> blood-letting and religion, no-one really knows the answer. There are
>>> no case-control studies big enough to begin to allow for confounding
>>> factors, for instance.
>>
>>The moderation policy should just state, "The hemlet use debate has been
>>done to death, feel free to discuss it in other appropriate locations,
>>but any post to uk.rec.cycling.moderated which presents any opinion on
>>the use of cycling helmets will be rejected."
>
> Which of course is absolute bollocks - why on earth should any subject which is
> obviously of interest to cyclists not be allowed?

There's no law that says everything must be allowed. If the moderation
policy says something the majority of users disagree with, then it can
be discussed. The issue is that the moderation behaviour doesn't appear
to match the policy. Since you will never change the behaviour (yours,
or theirs, whoever those groups are) you may as well stump up for a
change in policy. The 'problem' could be solved by ruling helmet
discussion out. You might find this annoying because you want to talk
about helmets, but actually, I don't think you want to talk about
helmets, you want to talk about helmets to a specific group of people
because you feel they are _wrong_ and need to be _corrected_.

Equally, you find this fun, because the people in question think you are
_wrong_ and need to be _corrected_. Many of course, are just bored by a
debate that has no right or wrong answer, and understand that no one can
be fully right or wrong, so where's the value in endless discussion.

> Are you suggesting that it is OK to form a moderated group based on the
> discussion in RFD and a vote and then introduce any arbitrary policy which was
> never envisaged at group formation time.

This is patently always possible, since the moderators of ulm have
changed the moderation policy over time. You may agree with the policy
and hence have no issue with it, but it doesn't mean the practice is not
happening. If a certain topic is too contentious or too complex to
moderate and adds little value to the group, and is happily covered in
another group (uk.rec.cycling to which everyone can post), then I don't
see any issue, in principal, of updating the moderation policy to
reflect that.

> What would you say if ULM moderators decided to introduce a policy that said :
> "The Tory Party may not be mentioned in any post" or "there can be no
> discussion of police officers breaking the law"

I would say that people may want to raise an RFD to have that policy
enforced in the charter, or ruled out in the charter. That way, the
majority can make their views known.

[Percy Picacity]

I am going to try one so I feel as though I am less likely to get hurt
if I fall off, so get over my mental block about cycling downhill. It
is absolutely nothing to do with whether it will protect me in a
'substantial impact', the original topic I was replying to. I don't
aim to have a substantial impact.

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

That is begging a stupid question: would you like to be hit over the
head with a piece of wood? I doubt if this is technically comparable
to real-life risks.

--

Percy Picacity

[Steve Firth]

Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:59:24 +0100, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>> At 21:09:55 on Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> <51671899$0$1846$c3e8da3$c00c...@news.astraweb.com>:
>>
>>> An interesting test of potential bias in URCM (for anyone with time on
>>> their hands) would be to quantify the proportion of posts broadly pro
>>> helmet vs. those anti helmet.
>>>
>>> As stated it is my feeling that pro helmet posts are very rare.
>>
>> What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
>> posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
>> head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use. They do
>> not consider that there are many possible head injuries, ranging from
>> the totally-squashed-bug to the "ouch, buggrit".
>
> I think you will find that most people know that the "ough buggrit"
> case is where helmets ARE useful. Some have explicitly said so in the
> group. It is the pro-helmet people who are constantly selling them as a
> near-panacea for KSI head-injury accidents, and it is that which is
> being responded to.

No one has said such a thing in this group or in this thread. You are
tilting at windmills.

Why do you have this hysterical and biased reaction?

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:45:26 +0100, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> tom wrote:
>>> On 10 Apr, 11:50, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2013-04-10 10:42:06 +0000, Nick said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you think URCM is representative of normal cyclists go out on the
>>>>> street and look at how many voluntarily choose to wear helmets.
>>>>> Cyclists who believe in helmets so strongly that they are prepared
>>>>> to put up with the discomfort, cost and inconveinience. Why are the
>>>>> views of these helmeted cyclists not reflected in URCM?
>>>>
>>>> To be pedantic, a lot of posters in urcm have said they wear helmets.
>>>> What is lacking is any widespread proselytising by them demanding
>>>> others do so. For that matter, I don't remenmber many comments from
>>>> the anti-helmet brigade saying that others shouldn't wear helmets.
>>>> I don't disagree about the current rejection, just pointing out that
>>>> there is no general antipathy to others using helmets in urcm.
>>>
>>> I disagree with you.
>>>
>>> Moderators of urcm and those on the passlist have often indicated a
>>> belief that anyone wearing a helmet is advocating compulsory helmet
>>> use. Their argument is that if cycle helmet use becomes widespread
>>> then the pro helmet lobby will be able to convince legislators that
>>> helmet use should become mandatory.
>>>
>>> I am not sure that I wholly disagree with them. If helmet use reaches
>>> 80 - 90% there is a very good chance that a law will be passed to make
>>> helmet use mandatory.

>>
>> Why has it not happened already? There must be that proportion of helmet
>> wearers around where I live!
>

> You are either living in a very different part of Britain to most of us,
> or you are only seeing a subset of the cyclists.

>
> 80-90% is wildly above the figures found by observational studies
> undertaken by TRL.

Kat is speaking from her experience of where she lives. Where I work - a
place that is very cycle friendly, with a good network of cycle paths and
dedicated lanes leading to the site from the major housing areas, helmet
wearing is 100%.

This leads me to suspect that you suffer from confirmation bias and that
your quoted sources are going to turn out to be at least a decade out of
date.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Percy Picacity]

I think that is a reasonable idea. Though it is not the only tedious
subject that anti-cyclists keep wanting to discuss, it is the one with
least scope for original contributions.

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>This is patently always possible, since the moderators of ulm have
>changed the moderation policy over time.

There is a difference between clarifying a policy and actually changing it.
What did you actually have in mind regarding ULM *changes* which have been
made.

> If a certain topic is too contentious or too complex to

>moderate .....

... then the moderators are clearly not up to the job.

Do you really, really think that the subject of "cycle helmets" is too
contentious or complex to be discussed in a public newsgroup. If you do then I
really do despair.

>
>> What would you say if ULM moderators decided to introduce a policy that said :
>> "The Tory Party may not be mentioned in any post" or "there can be no
>> discussion of police officers breaking the law"
>
>I would say that people may want to raise an RFD to have that policy
>enforced in the charter, or ruled out in the charter. That way, the
>majority can make their views known.

Oh - so that would require an RFD - but you suggest that the URCM moderators
could just introduce an arbitrary ban on a particular topic without the
discussion.

I see where you are coming from now: one *rule* for URCM and a different *rule*
for all other moderated groups.

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:49:21 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

>I think that is a reasonable idea. Though it is not the only tedious
>subject that anti-cyclists keep wanting to discuss, it is the one with
>least scope for original contributions.

So you think that anyone who wants to discuss cycle-helmets is automatically
anti-cyclist.

You really should ask Wacko if there are any spare places in his moderation
squad.

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:09:15 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>


>>

>I propose a test, involving hitting people over the head with a sturdy bit
>of wood. Some can have a protective device and others can do without..
>I wonder how many of the anti-"foam hat" regulars would prefer to be in the
>group with helmets?

Well said.

That question has been asked many times - but for some reason the psycholists
chose not to answer it.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
>posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
>head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use.

It would astonish me if anyone seriously made that argument, and I'm a bit
astonished that you have managed to misread anyone as doing so.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is Tuesday, April.
Tomorrow will be Wednesday, April.

[Steve Firth]

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

> That is begging a stupid question: would you like to be hit over the
> head with a piece of wood? I doubt if this is technically comparable to real-life risks.

OK make it real. You can be hit over the head with a concrete kerbstone. Do
you want a helmet or not?

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

> Safety is relative. The question is whether cycling is significantly
> more dangerous than not cycling. I don't have (or presume) the answer,
> but an anecdote about one death, or even several, has little bearing on
> the answer. People are dying all the time of this and that.

AKA "The Tobacco Company Defence".

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message

news:6g5ruk....@news.alt.net...

It's intended to simulate an impact of the kind you might get if a car pulls
out into your path and you go head first into the bodywork.


--
Alex

[Molly Mockford]

At 18:44:08 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Dr Zoidberg
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in
<kk9h0e$tm9$1...@dont-email.me>:

Only if it was a Morris Countryman.

("Ooh look - a Shakespearean half-timbered car!" Dame Edna Everege)
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

[Percy Picacity]

No, but I think several of the very small group of distinct people who
want to discuss cycle helmets in urcm are anti cyclist.

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

No, actually, its the measles vaccine company defence.

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

Well, if it simulates it to the extent that I have no idea as to what
angle the impact would meet my head at, then I am not totally sure I'd
want the helmet. Though natural fear might lead me to choose it in the
absence of concrete evidence that I was adding to my risks of neck
injury, or torsional brain damage.


--

Percy Picacity

[Molly Mockford]

At 17:46:27 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<NZv*y6...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
>>posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
>>head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use.
>
>It would astonish me if anyone seriously made that argument, and I'm a
>bit astonished that you have managed to misread anyone as doing so.

OK, maybe it's a few posters many times. One particular poster who is
strongly notable for his lack of logic may well be skewing the apparent
bias in that direction. It is certainly the very strong impression
which one obtains as a reader of the group.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-04-12 18:22:26 +0000, Molly Mockford said:

> At 17:46:27 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013, David Damerell
> <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
> <NZv*y6...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>> Quoting Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk>:
>>> What astonishes me is the total lack of logic re helmets, in that many
>>> posters repeat that because a helmet would not save your life when in
>>> head-on collision with a large lorry, they must be of no use.
>>
>> It would astonish me if anyone seriously made that argument, and I'm a
>> bit astonished that you have managed to misread anyone as doing so.
>
> OK, maybe it's a few posters many times. One particular poster who is
> strongly notable for his lack of logic may well be skewing the apparent
> bias in that direction. It is certainly the very strong impression
> which one obtains as a reader of the group.

The party line, if there is one, seems to be that helmets are likely to
be of benefit when hitting objects at relative speeds obtained by
cycling. This makes them probably desirable in in e.g. downhill
mountain biking where the risk of falls is high, but a personal choice
in road cycling where the risk of falling off is low and a person may
or may not find a helmet inconvenient or uncomfortable. Most of the
regulars in urcm who are not strong proponents of helmets have said
something to that effect, even Mr Lee! Don't forget you are reading
them against a background of constant attacks, mockery and distortion
of their views which probably affects your perceptions even if you know
it is happening.

--

Percy Picacity

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Molly Mockford" <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
news:engc0Bhd...@molly.mockford...

> At 18:44:08 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Dr Zoidberg
> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in
> <kk9h0e$tm9$1...@dont-email.me>:
>
>>"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:6g5ruk....@news.alt.net...
>>> On 2013-04-12 14:09:15 +0000, Dr Zoidberg said:
>
>>>> I propose a test, involving hitting people over the head with a sturdy
>>>> bit of wood. Some can have a protective device and others can do
>>>> without..
>>>> I wonder how many of the anti-"foam hat" regulars would prefer to be in
>>>> the group with helmets?
>>>
>>> That is begging a stupid question: would you like to be hit over the
>>> head with a piece of wood? I doubt if this is technically comparable
>>> to real-life risks.
>>>
>>It's intended to simulate an impact of the kind you might get if a car
>>pulls out into your path and you go head first into the bodywork.
>
> Only if it was a Morris Countryman.
>

Don't forget the Morgans

--
Alex

[Tony]

uk.rec.cycling removed, because this is about moderation, not cycling.

In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>This is patently always possible, since the moderators of ulm have
>>changed the moderation policy over time.
>
>There is a difference between clarifying a policy and actually changing it.
>What did you actually have in mind regarding ULM *changes* which have been
>made.

Do your own research. You either believe me, or you don't, you usually
don't, and I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything.

>> If a certain topic is too contentious or too complex to
>>moderate .....
>
>... then the moderators are clearly not up to the job.
>
>Do you really, really think that the subject of "cycle helmets" is too
>contentious or complex to be discussed in a public newsgroup. If you do then I
>really do despair.

You're free to despair. Ordinary people, with ordinary motives can read my
post and decide for themselves what I said, I'm not interested in pandering
to your wishes of arguing the toss out of every minute detail.

>>> What would you say if ULM moderators decided to introduce a policy that said :
>>> "The Tory Party may not be mentioned in any post" or "there can be no
>>> discussion of police officers breaking the law"
>>
>>I would say that people may want to raise an RFD to have that policy
>>enforced in the charter, or ruled out in the charter. That way, the
>>majority can make their views known.
>
>
>Oh - so that would require an RFD - but you suggest that the URCM moderators
>could just introduce an arbitrary ban on a particular topic without the
>discussion.

Please keep up. Charters require RFD's, published moderation policies
don't. If the majority want to overturn a published moderation policy
they'll need to either 1) constructively engage the moderation team - which
you're incapable of doing, and which the moderation team aren't interesting
in allowing or 2) change the charter to force the moderators to change
their approach, because if they don't, and if they continue to moderate in
breach of the charter which a majority of users have voted for, then it'll
soon be obvious they should move on.

Moderation policies don't get voted on.
Charters get voted on.

[Judith]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:49:10 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>uk.rec.cycling removed, because this is about moderation, not cycling.
>
>In uk.net.news.moderation, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:32:45 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>This is patently always possible, since the moderators of ulm have
>>>changed the moderation policy over time.
>>
>>There is a difference between clarifying a policy and actually changing it.
>>What did you actually have in mind regarding ULM *changes* which have been
>>made.
>
>Do your own research. You either believe me, or you don't, you usually
>don't, and I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything.

I love it when people make claims and then can't back them up.

>>> If a certain topic is too contentious or too complex to
>>>moderate .....
>>
>>... then the moderators are clearly not up to the job.
>>
>>Do you really, really think that the subject of "cycle helmets" is too
>>contentious or complex to be discussed in a public newsgroup. If you do then I
>>really do despair.
>
>You're free to despair. Ordinary people, with ordinary motives can read my
>post and decide for themselves what I said, I'm not interested in pandering
>to your wishes of arguing the toss out of every minute detail.

You clearly said that certain topics were too contentious or too complex to
moderate - and yet you cannot give any examples. The only sensible conclusion
is that you were talking bollocks (again)

Did I say : I love it when people make claims and then can't back them up.

[kat]

I thought Molly was reading it in the moderated group where the "attacks"
and "mockery" and "distortion" ( on the pro side of the helmet argument )
were excluded on the basis all the posts come from Judith?


--
kat
>^..^<

[Kim Bolton]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:49:21 +0100, Percy Picacity wrote:

> Though it [cycle helmets] is not the only tedious subject that anti-cyclists keep

> wanting to discuss, it is the one with least scope for original
> contributions.

I don't necessarily agree.

For example, a recent posting on urcm referred to someone stamping on a discarded cycle helmet they
discovered on a beach, from which it could be implied that helmets are unsuitable for use as a safety device.

It was very clear from that that many posters on the topic have no idea about failure mechanisms in real
materials, how different materials used together can provide enhanced resistance to (in this case) impact, what
factors contribute to environmental degredation of the failure mechanisms (and therefore how e.g. helmets
should be cared for and used), or other related matters. Some of this is touched on in the cyclehelmets.org web
site, where it is mentioned that older-style helmets (deformable liner in a hard shell outer, in the style of
motorcycle helmets) appear to offer better protection than more modern helmet designs, clearly a rich field for
study.

Other things that have been mentioned are brain overheating (was this a joke?), 'torsion', the apparent lack of
proof that in any one instance a cycle helmet has saved a life, thus calling into question the whole issue of safety
devices, nutrition, health matters, and public safety policies that have operated successfully in other areas,
begging the question - that must be answered - as to why cycling is considered in some quarters to be uniquely
different when it comes to safety issues.

I feel there is much to discuss, and there must be some original thoughts in these disparate areas that remains
to be brought out.

--
Kim Bolton

[Percy Picacity]

Well your post doesn't add anything which suggests there is more to
discuss. Except the logic that says safety devices make you safer;
cycle helmets are a safety device; therefore cycle helmets make you
safer. Lots of people have said that, but, unfortunately, it begs too
many questions. Just to take the first statement, consider the
considerable number of public policies on nutrition that have proved to
be totally ill-founded and been reversed within decades! I leave the
second and third limb for anyone who wants to rehearse this tired old
stuff.

(PS I expect the person who said he crushed a helmet underfoot and that
proves something was probably just teasing the opposition - it is not
hard for any of us to see that that test is irrelevant.)



--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

What I meant to say was that the discussion will only be useful if
there is new research to discuss, and it is unlikely that a firm
conclusion can be drawn from any one new piece of work. People's
common sense is not a useful addition to the discussion, in this as in
so many fields.

--

Percy Picacity